Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Short catalog' and does not disclose whether the tool performs any checks, returns codes, accepts parameters meaningfully, or has side effects. This is too thin for a tool with seven input parameters.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, short, front-loaded phrase with no filler. It is efficient and easy to parse, although the brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given seven unrelated-looking input parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot tell how the catalog relates to parameters like 'city', 'json', or 'path', nor what the expected return value is.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so schema coverage is high at 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema itself documents each field, matching the baseline of 3 for well-covered schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the resource: a catalog of common HTTP status codes. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', the purpose is reasonably inferable and distinct from siblings focused on fetching or validation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus any sibling. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to guess when a status-catalog lookup is the right call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.